Joe,
about half the books a university library buys are never
read.
This has been known for half a century now, and seems to be
general. (The difficulty for a selector is predicting the
right
half.) It is possible for a library to buy only if
requested, and
facilitating this is one of the good things about e-books.
The
result, of course, will be that half the books requested are
never used again.
This is one of the consequences of Lotka's Law, which
applies to
books as well as to journal articles.
If the OSU library did not buy a particular book, the
publisher
would most likely get nothing at all from the OSU market.
There
are many academic books whose sole purchasers are libraries
(except for a few dozen specialist faculty), because the
pricing
spiral applies to books as well as journals, and the cost of
research monographs, just like the cost of research
journals, has
become too great for both students and faculty, unless they
have
a special need.
As with non-academic books, a few become best-sellers, and
then
the price is such that individuals buy (generally it is
possible
to spot them in publishers catalogs--they are the ones that
also
come out in paperback, that year or the following. )
A few become widely used in reserve, and then the library
either
buys a number of copies in paperback, or buys the
appropriate
multi-user rights for an e-book. For an e-book read by only
one
user at a time, there is no reason multi-user rights are
appropriate or necessary, any more than multiple copies
would be.
Before indulging in poetic economics, it is advisable to
know
something about the actual situation.
David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
previously:
Bibliographer and Research Librarian
Princeton University Library
dgoodman princeton.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Esposito <espositojgmail.com>
Date: Saturday, October 21, 2006 10:20 pm
Subject: Re: Column on licenses
To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
> Toby:
>
> I admire the energy and creativity you have put into
your
> program, but none of it is going to stop publishers and
authors
> from sueing Google or anybody else who scans
in-copyright works.
>
> Here is a scenario. You are the publisher of Thomas
Friedman's
> The World is Flat. You sell one copy to Ohio State for
$25.
> The book is scanned and put on a server, for viewing by
any
> member of the Ohio State community. I haven't checked
the
> numbers; how many people is that? 75,000? 100,000?
Why do I
> smell a lawsuit in the works?
>
> Another scenario: you publish a scholarly monograph
with an
> initial printing of 800 copies. A library purchases
it, scans
> it, and makes it available to members of its community?
A
> lawsuit? Dumb idea, but on the other hand, there is
the issue of
> setting a precedent.
>
> Third scenario: you publish a narrative history (say,
a
> biography of Andrew Mellon, which I just saw today in a
> bookstore) for $35. You print 20,000 copies. When a
library
> purchases it, the library has the option of getting
extended
> rights. For $200 the library's community gets
ereserve, ILL, and
> digital coursepack rights. For $1,000 the library gets
LAN
> rights for its entire community. These licenses are
totally
> automated: go to a Web site, enter your institution's
name (or
> Hazel Henderson's or Atypon's DOI), choose the license
you want,
> wait for the service to verify with WorldCat that you
purchased a
> copy of the hardcopy, and have your institution's
PayPal account
> debited. I have no idea what the right prices are, and
I know for
> a fact that some publishers will try everything
possible to wring
> every possible dollar out of this; but over time
conventions for
> pricing will arise.
>
> Setting up a service like this will take a great deal
of time and
> reflection, and the best service will not please
everybody. We
> can point out everything that is wrong with clearly
articulated
> licenses and an attempt to come to fair pricing, or we
can look
> for practical ways to get publishers and libraries on
the, er,
> same page.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
> On 10/20/06, Toby.GREENoecd.org <Toby.GREENoecd.org> wrote:
>> Joe,
>>
>> Thanks for the clarifications. I missed the bit
about hardcopy.
>> In fact we already offer e-books to anyone who
purchases
>> hardcopy via our online bookshop (and we allow our
distributors
>> to make the same offer too). We don't charge any
more for this
>> service: simply put, the hardcopy purchasers can
download the
>> e-book whenever they want and as often as they want
from their
>> account. For some of our titles we also print
Internet links in
>> the hardcopy to data files and other background
information
>> that supplements the work. We don't impose any
license on the
>> purchaser to access these e-resources (beyond the
usual
>> copyright statements) and I think it would be
impracticable to
>> do so unless we used the same sort of method as
used by
>> software providers, i.e. some sort of "I
agree" box at the foot
>> of a huge legal document that no-one ever reads
which you have
>> to click before you can open the software. Does it
stop users
>> pirating software? Or sharing it with their
friends? Does it
>> stop large software vendors from being dragged
through long
>> legal battles? I also have another practical
problem - we sell
>> our books to clients in nearly every jurisdiction
around the
>> world - how could I possibly (a) draw up a legal
agreement that
>> would work everywhere since I can't afford a legal
team the
>> size of Microsoft's and (b) how could I possibly
enforce them
>> if I did? Surely the scale of this questioning of
the limits to
>> copyright is such that it has to be handled
systemically by
>> legislators rather than litigators?
>>
>> I agree that our business model is less likely to
work for
>> books other than research monographs, conference
proceedings
>> and the like. But I would like to correct the
impression that
>> we're walking away from our hardcopy business -
we're not,
>> because we never had a "hardcopy
business". This may sound
>> pedantic, but it's a point worth making. Our
business is the
>> same - providing information in an effective
manner. So far I
>> haven't come across very many clients who express
the need for
>> licenses as part of our service, and I'd hate for
this to
>> change because our administrative costs would grow
and we'd
>> have to pass this onto our customers.
>>
>> Toby Green
>> Head of Dissemination and Marketing
>> OECD Publishing
>> Public Affairs and Communications Directorate
|